To win Pennsylvania, Donald Trump did exactly what he needed to in Philly: Improve slightly.

President-elect Donald Trump won one out of five Philadelphia voters in one of the strongest performances by a Republican presidential candidate in the deep-blue city in years, doing so by increasing his support in working-class communities across racial groups.

Despite winning Philadelphia handily, Vice President Kamala Harris failed to capture enough votes in the city — where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 6-1 — to offset Republican gains elsewhere in the state, a key factor in Trump’s decisive statewide win.

With some ballots still left to count, Harris was carrying the city with about 78% of the vote, compared with Trump’s 20%. As of Thursday evening, she had a 412,000-vote advantage over Trump — if that holds, it would be the lowest margin for a Democratic presidential candidate in two decades. The rightward trend was reflected throughout the country, including in other big cities, and Trump improved on his 2020 performance in every state that had counted most of its votes.

All told, Philadelphia was on pace to shift about 2 percentage points to the right. But turnout was roughly flat compared with 2020 — lower than Democrats had hoped. Harris was on track to receive at least 50,000 fewer votes in the city than President Joe Biden won in 2020.

Around midday Tuesday, top Democrats in the city were predicting record turnout. Mayor Cherelle L. Parker mused that the city might deliver 650,000 or more votes for Harris. Ultimately, Philadelphia came nowhere close to that. While some ballots were still being counted, Harris had received 554,000 votes as of Thursday evening.

“I don’t know what happened,” City Councilmember Jim Harrity, who works with the state and city Democratic Party, said Wednesday. “I’m dazed and confused, to say the least. I don’t know what happened. I don’t know what happened. We had so many extra people in here doing all this work, and to be honest, it didn’t seem to sway anybody.”

But Republicans said they know what happened: City voters were more frustrated with the status quo than Democrats thought, and Harris didn’t separate herself from Biden enough to persuade the electorate she could change course.

“They did a good job convincing everyone this race was closer than it was,” said Josh Novotney, a Republican ward leader and political consultant. “What I saw was minority and working-class people taking the bus from all over the city to come to the office to pick up Trump signs.”

» READ MORE: In deep-blue Philly, working class voters are shifting toward Republicans

Trump’s biggest base of support in the city is with white, working-class voters. As of Thursday, he was winning outright in five of the city’s 66 political wards — all of them are majority white — and he carried about 30% of the vote citywide in majority-white precincts. And as was the case in 2020, Trump’s strongest performance in Philadelphia was in the city’s Northeast.

The Republican’s most significant growth, though, was with Latino voters, who have been drifting from the Democratic Party in Philadelphia over the last two election cycles. Trump carried 21% of the vote in the city’s majority-Latino precincts, a 15-percentage-point increase compared with 2016.

Trump improved his margins only slightly in Philadelphia’s majority-Black neighborhoods — carrying just 6% in those precincts, compared with 2.6% eight years ago — despite a significant amount of Democratic hand-wringing over potential losses with Black men.

Across the city, Trump’s support increased most in precincts where incomes were lowest. That reality could bolster Republicans’ analysis that city voters were primarily concerned with inflation and rising prices, which have a disproportionate impact on the working class and are broadly associated with the incumbent.

“I can see the difference in my refrigerator,” said Brittany Bennett, a 33-year-old mother who lives in Bridesburg. She voted for Trump.

Harris’ lower-than-expected margins in Philadelphia are a bruising loss for her campaign, which poured resources into the city and made concerted efforts to reach voters of color. The campaign had seven offices here, six of which were in majority-Black and Latino neighborhoods.

And of Harris’ 37 visits to Pennsylvania, 15 were to Philadelphia, where she ended her campaign in a star-studded concert on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Her campaign was also bolstered by a large and organized independent field operation made up of labor unions and progressive political organizations. Many of those efforts to knock on doors and persuade voters were concentrated in working-class neighborhoods in Philadelphia.

Trump’s ground game in the city was comparatively small and more disjointed, and Harris campaign advisers said often they thought the Democratic operation was superior. Ultimately, it didn’t seem to sway working-class voters in the city, who have slowly drifted away from the Democratic Party.

“These are areas of the city trending more Republican for years,” Novotney said.

» READ MORE: Democratic turnout in Philly has been soft. Will the Harris campaign’s amped-up ground game reverse the trend?

Larry Ceisler, a public-affairs executive based in the city who has worked with Democrats, said it was always going to be challenging for Harris to overcome inflation and the perception that the economy is in poor condition. As far as turnout, he said, “people have lost faith in government.”

”Hopefully Mayor Parker can turn this around, and I think that she could,” Ceisler said. “But people have lost faith that government can better their lives.”

Some pointed fingers at the local Democratic Party for failing to drive stronger turnout in the city. The Democratic City Committee has for years been criticized as ineffective. Progressives were particularly clear-eyed Wednesday in pointing out the party’s growing problems reaching working-class voters.

”Everyday people are crying out to be heard and the Democratic Party has turned a deaf ear,” said Diana Robinson, co-deputy director of Make the Road Action in Pennsylvania, which advocates for Latinos across the state. “Last night, years of neglect of working-class people came to an ugly head.”

But former U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, chair of the Philadelphia Democratic Party, said the failure sits with Harris — an accusation her campaign wholly rejected.

“We did everything we could with limited resources we had,” Brady said, “and people just rejected her and voted for him.”

Part of Philadelphia’s rightward shift on Tuesday came in Latino neighborhoods, a once-reliable Democratic base. Trump support grew markedly in Latino communities across the state and the nation, reflecting a widespread shift among those voters that had been telegraphed in polling.

Harris won handily in Puerto Rican and Dominican strongholds in North Philadelphia, but the shift was clear.

» READ MORE: Donald Trump’s growing support among Latino voters helped him clinch battleground Pennsylvania

Trump’s share of the vote in the city’s 114 majority-Latino precincts rose to about 22%, up from 6% in 2016. Trump drew nearly 23% of the vote in North Philadelphia’s 7th Ward, his vote total growing by about 1,000 votes compared with 2016, while Democrats lost nearly 2,000 votes across the same time frame.

Similarly, the Juniata Park neighborhood saw more than a 9-percentage-point jump in Trump votes between the two elections, while Fairhill, one of the most impoverished neighborhoods in the city, saw a nearly 6-percentage-point increase.

And in Kensington, a diverse working-class neighborhood plagued by one of the nation’s most notorious open-air drug markets, Trump saw nearly three-point growth.

State Rep. Danilo Burgos, a Democrat who leads the predominantly Latino and Black 43rd Ward in North Philadelphia, said the drift was palpable. Turnout in his ward slumped 18% compared with 2020, and Trump grew his vote share from 8% to 14%.

“My community came out as good as we could possibly come out,” said Burgos, whose family is from the Dominican Republic. “Obviously, there’s room for improvement.”

Burgos acknowledged Democrats failed to deliver a compelling message around the economy and inflation. Whatever reservations Latino voters may have had about a future Trump administration conducting mass deportations, he argued, they were more concerned about soaring grocery and housing costs.

The community, he said, is not a monolithic voting bloc.

“We have always painted the Latino community with the same brush as other groups,” he said, “and in this case, unfortunately, a lot of them felt they needed to vote for President Trump.”

Many simply chose not to vote. Aida Zeno, who lives in Norris Square, is a native of Puerto Rico who moved to Philadelphia in the early 2000s. Zeno hoped Harris would win, but she refused to vote as a way of protesting.

“I don’t feel like it’s fair for me to give them my vote every time when things never change,” the 54-year-old said in Spanish.

Maria Quiñones-Sánchez, a former City Council member who represented swaths of North Philadelphia and Kensington, said Trump was able to capture votes through a mix of economic messaging and his particular brand of machismo that appeals to men in particular.

She also said Harris’ short campaigning window did not allow for extensive engagement in the community — whereas Republican operatives targeted Latino votes with an unwavering message.

“They knew they could drill in on the folks who were unhappy,” she said. “We as Democrats don’t do a good job at explaining that we have a good economy compared to the rest of the world.”

Staff writers Michelle Myers, Beatrice Forman, John Duchneskie, Chris Williams, and Lizzie Mulvey contributed to this article.